Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Mini D

Science suffers the same fatal flaw as modern day religion. It's about believing in people, not facts. You believe that the people doing publishing these papers and finding this evidence knew what they were doing and published solely for the sake of enlightenment without the cloudly issue of personal gain involved.

Me... I have a hard time believing in the accuracy of science that can't even predict the weather.

Have you ever heard of Math? It is not about believing people. Have you ever had a science lab?

You down science because they cant predict weather perfectly, and thus you discredit them. Too bad you don't hold Religion to the same standard.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Mini D
Is this how you formed your view of how the world originated?

As a matter of fact yes.  Now I'm off to Fermilab...  See ya

[Holden McGroin]

Actually Mini D your question is the reason for peer review.  We can count on the verifiable fact that the work has been done to confirm General Relativity and Quantum.

Engineering uses Relativity in GPS for example.  If relavistic corrections were not accounted for the system would be much less accurate than it is.  Quantum theory and the Standard Particle Model predicts behaivior on the sub-atomic scale with extreme accuracy.

If there were any question in the accuracy of these theories (which could be more accurately called laws as they are more accurate than Newtons gravitation law) some scientist would find the problem, win the Nobel prize, and assure a wonderful income for the rest of his/her life in Princeton NJ (he could probably be a well paid visiting professor and live Tahiti or Aspen.

[Seagoon]

Hi Holden,

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
No, I just think that Intellegent Design is lazy science.  Once you answer the question with the answer that "It's Gods will" inquiry stops.

"Why is the sky blue daddy?"

"Intellegent Design, son."

If the son accepts that answer he will not learn of light refraction thru the predominant gasses in the atmosphere.

I was getting confused as to why you keep bringing up this strawman argument, I mean even on the most basic level its falsity should be apparent. The very discovery of light refraction that you believe ID would have prevented was made in the 17th century by a believer in intelligent design, Francesco Grimaldi who was of all things a Jesuit Priest. His work was further refined by the discoveries of men like Johannes Keppler, a protestant believer who started his educational career with Theology at Tubingen. So I'm failing to see how, when most of the scientific discoveries made prior to the 20th century were made by theists not atheists, why you believe further inquiry into ID would actually end all scientific inquiry and effectively spell the death knell to science.

Then it occurred to me that you might actually believe that for theists "God" is merely a superstitious creation to explain away all natural phenomena. In other words, a theist's "science class" would consist of a bunch of half-naked savages squatting around a fire and would go something like this. "Why when rain come, sky go boom and lights flash?" "God angry, he shout, make sky rumble and fire flashes from his eye! next question." etc.

The whole idea not only dismisses all of the history of science, it even overlooks almost every theistic theological system which posits that God primarily works through secondary means not directly. So faced with the question about a blue sky the believer in ID explains to his child about refraction, light waves, dust particles, and so on. The only real difference is that for the theist, the ultimate source of all these laws, principles, phenomena and so on is God rather than the materialists answer of something along the lines of "Chance & Time."




In any event, guys, this will probably be my last post on this subject until Monday as tomorrow is my busiest day of the week.

One final thought, although he doesn't believe in creationism or intelligent design and has been a leading evolutionary scientist for many years, Michael Ruse is currently creating quite a stir with his admission that atheistic evolutionism has unfortunately become essentially a religious faith which will brook no rivals and that this is having a negative effect on science generally. Salon recently published an interview with Ruse where he talks frankly about this. While I don't agree with Ruse on much, its definitely food for thought and indicates that there is a real problem.

Here's a teaser from the article:

"Ruse has devoted much of his career, first at the University of Guelph in Ontario and more recently at Florida State, to battling the creationist agenda in science and philosophy, in the classroom and the political arena. At the same time, he has become increasingly fascinated with the indistinct borderlands between science and religion. He has leapt to the defense of scientists who profess religious faith, in the face of derision from prominent atheistic Darwinians like Richard Dawkins. He has supported Christians and other believers who argue that religious faith and evolutionary science do not necessarily contradict one another, and who have resisted the rising tide of fundamentalism.
   
In Ruse's 2000 book "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?" he answered the question forcefully in the affirmative, while making clear he wasn't personally a believer. On the other hand, in his 2003 book "Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?" Ruse answered that question more or less in the negative, politely describing creationism and intelligent design (often simply called I.D.) as intellectual dead ends -- while reasserting that he thought evolutionary thinking could be compatible with theistic religion.

Yet, even in the context of these moderate and nuanced positions and this steadfast rejection of absolutism, Ruse's new book, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle," comes as something of a surprise. On one level, the book is a fairly standard intellectual history of how the 18th century Enlightenment led to a crisis of faith in the Western world, which led in turn to two responses: a turn toward fundamentalist, evangelical religion on one hand, and a turn toward increasingly non-theistic reason and science on the other. The two forces have effectively been in combat ever since, which carries us up to science textbooks, school prayer, abortion and homosexuality, sacrilegious TV sitcoms, the last two presidential elections and the rest of today's "culture wars."

Above and beyond that, Ruse makes a heretical argument in "The Evolution-Creation Struggle" that will not endear him to members of his own team. Creationism and evolutionism, he says, are siblings, born of the same historical crisis, and they provide distorted reflections of each other. "The two sides share a common set of questions and, in important respects, common solutions," he writes. More explosively, he thinks both are essentially theological in character; they are "rival religious responses to a crisis of faith -- rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies -- pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind."

Ruse is drawing a crucial distinction between evolutionary science, narrowly considered -- which need not have any religious or spiritual consequences -- and evolutionism, the secular, atheistic religion he says often accompanies and enfolds Darwinism. Leading evolutionists like Dawkins, Ruse believes, have failed to draw clear distinctions between the two, and have led many to believe that Darwinian science is fatally allied to an arrogant atheism and a hostile caricature of religious belief. In essence, Ruse believes that fundamentalist evolutionists like Dawkins and W.D. Hamilton hold similar beliefs to fundamentalist creationists -- both sides would agree that Darwinism is a "dark theology" that removes ultimate meaning and purpose from the universe and augurs the death of God.

You might say that, in this new book, Ruse is calling for a Reformation within the church of evolutionism. He himself honors the truth claims of science and is "a hell of a lot closer" to atheism than to religious belief. But he thinks evolutionists must purge themselves of reflexive anti-religious fervor, and acknowledge at least the potential validity of the classic Augustinian position that science and theology can never directly contradict one another, since science can only consider nature and God, by definition, is outside nature. Without this consciousness, Ruse suggests, evolutionism is in fact a secular religion, a church without Christ. And if that's what it is, what is it doing in biology class?..."

- SEAGOON

[Nash]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually Mini D your question is the reason for peer review.  We can count on the verifiable fact that the work has been done to confirm General Relativity and Quantum.

Engineering uses Relativity in GPS for example.  If relavistic corrections were not accounted for the system would be much less accurate than it is.  Quantum theory and the Standard Particle Model predicts behaivior on the sub-atomic scale with extreme accuracy.

If there were any question in the accuracy of these theories (which could be more accurately called laws as they are more accurate than Newtons gravitation law) some scientist would find the problem, win the Nobel prize, and assure a wonderful income for the rest of his/her life in Princeton NJ (he could probably be a well paid visiting professor and live Tahiti or Aspen.

Holy...

I've said some (okay sue me, many) outlandish things....

But I don't think I've ever had my nuts held to the fire quite like that.

We've reached the point in the video game where there is this badass thing that you can't get beyond.

Deja.... Tip of the hat and salute. Been nice knowing ya.

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Mini D
No matter what the theory, it requires the presence of matter. This is a fundamental basic that no scientific theory can explain. None. What happened after matter was introduced is another subject all together. Simply dismissing this fundamental issue does not make the problem go away.

This is correct and no one can argue against it. Matter had to  either be created or just pop into existance on it's own. Any "science" that ignors this FACT is just ignorant.

[Godzilla]

Originally posted by Nash
Hey man, my faith in God is probably way stronger than yer average Sunday Church goer.

And I believe in science.

I think my mind is about as open as it could possibly get.

You have a closed mind if you do not accept that our existance could be the resut of a creator rather than chance.

If you limit your outlook, you are no different than the people who insisted that the world is flat.

[hacksaw1]

Scientists' Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 11 August 2005
02:24 pm ET

   

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey
that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to
debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and
attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the
study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like
physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God.
[So 62 percent apparently do believe]
Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.
[69 percent apparently do believe]

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund
surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36
questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be
less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our
data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out stats: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe,
[59 percent apparently do believe]
while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76
percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in
some sort of afterlife.

"Now we must examine the nature of these differences," Ecklund said
today. "Many scientists see themselves as having a spirituality not
attached to a particular religious tradition. Some scientists who don't
believe in God see themselves as very spiritual people. They have a way
outside of themselves that they use to understand the meaning of life."

Ecklund and colleagues are now conducting longer interviews with some of
the participants to try and figure it all out.

http://www.livescience.com/

Best Regards.

Cement

[hacksaw1]

We are all related to man who lived in Asia in 1,415BC
By David Derbyshire, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 30/09/2004)

Everyone in the world is descended from a single person who lived around 3,500 years ago, according to a new study.

Scientists have worked out the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people alive today probably dwelt in eastern Asia around 1,415BC.

Although the date may seem relatively recent, researchers say the findings should not come as a surprise.
Anyone trying to trace their family tree soon discovers that the number of direct ancestors doubles every 20 to 30 years. It takes only a few centuries to clock up thousands of direct ancestors.

Using a computer model, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology attempted to trace back the most recent common ancestor using estimated patterns of migration throughout history.

They calculated that the ancestor's location in eastern Asia allowed his or her descendants to spread to Europe, Asia, remote Pacific Islands and the Americas. Going back a few thousand years more, the researchers found a time when a large fraction of people in the world were the common ancestors of everybody alive today - while the rest were ancestors of no one alive. That date was 5,353BC, the team reports in Nature.

The researchers, led by Dr Steve Olson, stressed that the date was an estimate.

"Nevertheless, our results suggest that the most recent common ancestor for the world's current population lived in the relatively recent past - perhaps within the last few thousand years," he said.

He added: "No matter the languages we speak or the colour of our skin, we share ancestors who planted rice on the banks of the Yangtze, who domesticated horses on the steppes of the Ukraine, who hunted giant sloths in the forest of north and south America and who laboured to build the Great Pyramid of Khufu."

Although some groups of people may have lived in isolation from the rest of the world for hundreds of years, the researchers say no one alive today has been untouched by migration.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk

hummmm

[Suave]

593 posts
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71334&highlight=evolution+vs+creation

307 posts
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43354&highlight=evolution+vs+creation

[Silat]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

Great read.
You are kidding yourselves if you think ID is anything but religious.  ( Religious fundamentalists funnel huge amounts of $$ to the selling of ID )
They want us to accept that GOD created us in his image as the bible says. This is a religious view not science as of yet.

And of course you can be religious and believe in evolution. The idea that you arent religious if you dont believe in a literal interpretation of the bible is ludicrous.

<Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.
Meanwhile, more than eighty per cent of Americans say that God either created human beings in their present form or guided their development. As a succession of intelligent-design proponents appeared before the Kansas State Board of Education earlier this month, it was possible to wonder whether the movement’s scientific coherence was beside the point. Intelligent design has come this far by faith>>

[Silat]

http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

One of the early-birds defending ID was UC Berkeley law professor Philip E. Johnson, who seems to have completely misunderstood Darwin's theory of natural selection as implying (1) God doesn't exist, (2) natural selection could only have happened randomly and by chance, and (3) whatever happens randomly and by chance cannot be designed by God. None of these beliefs is essential to natural selection. There is no inconsistency in believing in God the Creator of the universe and in natural selection. Natural selection could have been designed by God. Or, natural selection could have occurred even if God did not exist. Thus, the first of several fallacies committed by ID defenders is the false dilemma. The choice is not either natural selection or design by God or some other superintelligent creatures. God could have designed the universe to produce life by random events following laws of nature. God could have created superintelligent aliens who are experimenting with natural selection. Superintelligent aliens could have evolved by natural selection and then introduced the process on our planet. There may be another scientific theory that explains living beings and their eco-systems better than natural selection (or intelligent design). The possibilities may not be endless but they are certainly greater than the two considered by ID defenders.

Two scientists often cited by defenders of ID are Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press, 1996), and William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1998). Dembski and Behe are fellows of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle research institute funded largely by Christian foundations. Their arguments are attractive because they are couched in scientific terms and backed by scientific competence. However, their arguments are identical in function to the creationists: rather than provide positive evidence for their own position, they mainly try to find weaknesses in natural selection. As already noted, however, even if their arguments are successful against natural selection, that would not increase the probability of ID.

Behe is an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University. Behe's argument is not essentially about whether evolution occurred, but how it had to have occurred. He claims that he wants to see "real laboratory research on the question of intelligent design."*  Such a desire belies his indifference to the science/metaphysics distinction. There is no lab experiment relevant to determining whether God exists.

[Suave]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Religions job is to explain why something exists.
A religion that trys to explain how something exists is mythology.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Actually Mini D your question is the reason for peer review.  We can count on the verifiable fact that the work has been done to confirm General Relativity and Quantum.

Has the nobel prize ever been given to someone that was later revealed to be a fraud? Or... even two people that were later revealed to be a fraud? I mean... peer review should eliminate that possibility... right? It's not like a bunch of scientists would look at something and admit that they don't understand enough of it to say it's wrong. They're too educated for that.

I work with 80 PhDs. They spend most of the day sitting around and scratching their heads at the discoveries they make. Virtually every change we've ever made has failed peer review at virtually every step with only a few people seeing the light and accepting it. "We fear change" is a constant in the scientific community. Peer review or not.

Peer review is one of the downfalls. It forces a group of people to defend themselves and their prior decisions as a group. That's very unfortunate.

Or... maybe you think the common sniping that occurs between professors is peer review? It's not like they are petty and vindictive. That's not how an educated person would behave... right?

This nobility and accuracy that you seem to believe exists in science is a sham. There are things that are done right, but very few of them. Even fewer where there's not significant room for improvement.

Theories are not based on science. They're based on belief. Science is merely a way to collect data. Scientists will use data to support their beliefs in the classic fashion. If you believe otherwise, you are naive.

[Mini D]

PS mcgroin: how much error is there in GPS systems right now? Just because people can't figure out how to make them better, doesn't mean they're perfect. It highlights that science will always let us down when it comes to explaining every detail.